Ship of Fools: How would you feel if everyone could quickly change their gender at will?

Thread: How would you feel if everyone could quickly change their gender at will? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023050

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Neil Gaiman once wrote a fascinating short story called Changes where a Dr trying to find a cure for cancer accidentally creates a pill that changes your physical gender every time you take it. Allowing people to change their gender back and forth at will for little cost.

My question is how would you feel if this pill was invented today?

How would you feel if people close to you decided to change? Your parents? Children? Siblings?
What about your spouse/partner?

If you were looking for a girl/boyfriend would you insist on them telling you their birth gender before going out with them?

Before getting into a long term relationship would you insist that they agree never to change?

In the story a few people were able to spot peoples birth gender and were employed by some nightclubs to bar people who had changed from entering. These clubs were popular with people who were looking to flirt and date but only wanted to do so with people who hadn’t changed. What do you think of this arrangement?

Would you ever take the pill? Would you never take the pill? Why?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Do you mean gender or sex? Think carefully before answering...

Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :

I'm not completely convinced that gender is binary anymore in our (western) culture. I'm not sure that it would bother me. My sex and gender line up (I was born female and I am a woman), but I am definitely a major tomboy. If this were 200 years ago I'm sure that everyone in my town would be freaking out about the way I act and present myself.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

A very interesting question!

If you stripped out the whole question of sexual and romantic attraction, I bet you would see ...

A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate,
A massive drive towards sexual equality and perhaps even positive incentives offered for people to become women.

In practice I think a lot of women wouldn't do that because they'd think their male partners would find it icky - cue self-interrogation about What Is Really Important In Life.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Do you mean gender or sex? Think carefully before answering...

Thank you so much for this. I am aware of the difference but for some reason, I really don't know why, I messed up my post by using gender instead of sex.

The correct question of course should be How would you feel if everyone could quickly change their sex at will.

If it's at all possible it would be really apreciated if any hosts could change it.

Mea culpa.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Are you referring to this ability suddenly becoming available, or to growing up in a species that has for time immemorial had this ability?

If the latter, then it's so far out of our ken to speculate with any degree of meaningfulness. Certainly gender (or what I think it's proxying for here, sex) wouldn't have anything like the influence, or be anything like the source of discrimination and prejudice, than it is now with us. If it's something you could change at whim, it would be not much different from hairstyle or boxers-or-briefs.

If the former, I would be bewildered, because so much of our interpersonal relations are at least tinged by, if not driven by, questions of sex and gender. After a while things would calm down, and you'd have old farts like me still uncomfortable with it (and resolutely NOT changing gender), and younger punks changing gender all the time just to make their parents uncomfortable.

A generation later few people would care except a handful of religious conservatives who insist that everybody be the "proper" gender (they would of course have a way of defining this which to them seemed obvious), and who would work diligently to pass laws to enforce their idea of gender correctness and immutability.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I bet you would see ...

* A stampede of women becoming men

Ricardus, you've lost me on this one. Why on earth do you suppose lots of women would want to become men?

I can understand that the odd one or two might, but a stampede? Why?

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I bet you would see ...

* A stampede of women becoming men
Ricardus, you've lost me on this one. Why on earth do you suppose lots of women would want to become men?

I can understand that the odd one or two might, but a stampede? Why?

Better pay? A near 100% drop in the risk of being raped?

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

I'd change to female when I really really really wanted to win an argument.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

In one of Charles Sheffield's books, he portrays a world in which people can (though not at zero cost) change various aspects of themselves. He speculates that many people, giving each physical sex a try, would prefer being female.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I can tell you one thing, when backpacking or hiking, I'd definitely change my sex to male when it came time to pee.

I wonder, what exactly would change when one takes the pill? I mean, would it just be the biological changes specific to reproduction, or would it include secondary (and even tertiary) sex characteristics? would I have greater upper body strength as a male? would I grow taller? would my metabolism increase? or would I be pretty much the same as I am, only with a penis and testicles, and without breasts? and what about the more subtle differences related to hormones? because if that would change, I can tell you I'd be male at least one week out of four!

I think it may change the way we view reproduction. if both partners could produce a child, then I think it possible that the relationship between the parent which gave birth to that child and the "other" parent may be different. At first I thought "neat, we could take turns dealing with all the joys and pains of pregnancy and delivery", but of course, if we could both do it, then it's possible we'd see our "own" kids differently than our partners kids. even if we were both the biological parents.

certainly such a pill would change our views about gender, and about the "typical" roles the two genders play in society.

I agree that initially many women would choose to become men, but I don't think that would last very long, because almost immediately as this occurred, the gender inequalities would start to vanish, and therefore the incentive to change would also start to decrease.

I suspect that eventually, over time, once the novelty wore of, it would become fairly rare, something done only when a person genuinely felt out of place in their birth sex.

I read a sci fi novel once that included an alien species in which sex was something that didn't become apparent in any way until puberty. therefore parents had no idea of what sex their child would eventually become. so of course, they treated all their kids the same (at least as relates to sex). and they couldn't related to a species such as humans who knew at birth which sex their child was.

This is an interesting concept, and I think I'll have to ponder it a bit. lots of possibilities :-).

Posted by Lord Jestocost (# 12909) on :

It would open up interesting new possibilities for spiking someone else's drinks - say, the bigoted sexist bore at the party.

Rapists could be required to spend time as the gender they hate.

The fact that "king" and "queen" are both single syllable has always been useful at coronations but could now become more useful on a daily basis. And any lagging laws that still favour one gender over another would very soon catch up.

But to answer the OP, I would understand Lady J taking the pill if it cured her cancer, and I would live with the change (she could always change back, right, and stay cancer-free?). But if she wanted to stay male then we would have to agree to be Just Good Friends. Which would be a shame.

Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :

If people were just changing their biological sex, and not gender, I'm not even sure that I would notice.

Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on :

Like Anyuta, I would definitely be happy to change sex when I needed to pee. I am fed up with having to negotiate filthy, smelly public loo's when out and about, or having to pay (such as in railway stations) for the "privilege" of answering the call of nature. It would be so much easier and more convenient to pee discreetly behind the nearest bush or rubbish container or in an alley-way as many men do!! [Biased]

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Ursula Le Guin wrote a science fiction book featuring the inhabitants of a planet who were essentially human, but hermaphrodite. Nobody's sex was defined until they came into season, at which point their bodies might tip either way - it wasn't a matter of conscious control. So anyone might have a baby, and anyone might father a child, and generally everyone expected to do both in the course of their lives.

It was an interesting book, but I wouldn't want to live on that planet.

I really, really cannot imagine wanting to change sex. To be allowed to do all the things men are allowed to do - yes. Not to have to do some of the things women have to do - certainly. But to become a man? No, thanks. And I don't believe many women would seriously want to change. Not if they had the option of living the life they want to live as a woman.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I'd be terrified. I am so socialised into male roles and behaviour that i wouldn't have a clue how to behave.

[ 09. May 2012, 16:31: Message edited by: leo ]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I bet you would see ...

* A stampede of women becoming men
Ricardus, you've lost me on this one. Why on earth do you suppose lots of women would want to become men?

I can understand that the odd one or two might, but a stampede? Why?
Better pay? A near 100% drop in the risk of being raped?

Pretty much. Plus better working conditions generally, stronger body, more prestige, no periods, no labour pains.

(This is still ignoring questions of sexual and romantic relationships though.)

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

I'd be interested to learn how many women would go for that package.

I certainly wouldn't buy it.

Posted by Jahlove (# 10290) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I can tell you one thing, when backpacking or hiking, I'd definitely change my sex to male when it came time to pee.

Here ya go

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

quote:
Ursula Le Guin wrote a science fiction book featuring the inhabitants of a planet who were essentially human, but hermaphrodite. Nobody's sex was defined until they came into season, at which point their bodies might tip either way - it wasn't a matter of conscious control. So anyone might have a baby, and anyone might father a child, and generally everyone expected to do both in the course of their lives.

It was an interesting book, but I wouldn't want to live on that planet.

Yes, it was an interesting book ('The Left Hand of Darkness'). The main protagonist, a (male) outsider from Earth, obviously thought of the hermaphrodites when they weren't in their female phase as male - part of the book is about him realising that this assumption was wrong.

[ 09. May 2012, 18:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

People changing between male and female so we could notice it? I'd call my psychiatrist!

People changing between male and female without us noticing it? It probably wouldn't make a difference to me. I'm asexual so it wouldn't bother me because I'm not attracted to anybody. It would only bother me if their personality changed at the same time.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Wow, did I ever have a strong response to the OP. A positive one.

I have been fascinated with androgyny for a long time. (I am sort of aesthetically/spiritually attracted to drag queens, and the two times in my life when I have had confusing erotic feelings about women, they were both straight-up tomboys.)

So this is probably a huge YMMV thing, but I for one would love it, take full advantage of it. It would be fun to play around with.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

I certainly wouldn't change, except perhaps as a brief experiment in bed with husband. [Smile]

I'm comfortable with being a woman. I like the fact that I can give birth, both sexes have their own medical challenges, I don't give a toss about pay and prestige, and I'm buggered if I'm going to let the fear of rapists make me dislike being my sex.

I'm more than a little shocked that there are men who's view of what it is like to be a woman is so negative that they assume a stampede of woman would want out of it like a shot. If the female sex is still regarded with pity, is that in spite of or because of decades of feminism. [Confused]

[ 09. May 2012, 19:01: Message edited by: PerkyEars ]

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

I forgot to answer the other questions!!

How would you feel if people close to you decided to change? Your parents? Children? Siblings?
What about your spouse/partner?

parents.. it's their business. I probably wouldn't like it, but that's because I'm used to the idea of them being one sex or the other. since my father has passed away, it would only be my mother, and I just can't see it happening, but if it did, I would deal and probably soon get used to it. Children.. well, again, it may bother me, but it's really their business. siblings.. this one wouldn't really even phase me much. spouse? yeah, that would have to be the one where I have some say in the matter, and I think we'd both have to have a long talk before either one of us made such a change. I suspect he would be wiling to change as an experiment.. but would NOT want me to change my sex.

If you were looking for a girl/boyfriend would you insist on them telling you their birth gender before going out with them?

no, but I'd want to know their thoughts on changes to sex.. is it something they change all the time, or just onece, or with consultation... I would see frequency of change as more important to me than whether there was a change at all.

Before getting into a long term relationship would you insist that they agree never to change?

no. but we would have to have a talk about how we would go about changing. I would see it as important to the relationship to be "on the same page".

In the story a few people were able to spot peoples birth gender and were employed by some nightclubs to bar people who had changed from entering. These clubs were popular with people who were looking to flirt and date but only wanted to do so with people who hadn’t changed. What do you think of this arrangement?

I think it's OK. I mean, I probably wouldn't frequent such a club, since "birth" sex probably would matter less to me than "current" sex, but I can understand why someone else may care. I don't see anything wrong with that when the question is seeking a partner. i WOULD see something wrong with it if it were a matter of employment (as one example).

Would you ever take the pill? Would you never take the pill? Why? I already answered this one: yeah, I probably would take it at least once to experiment with it (in consultation with my spouse if I intended it to last long enough for him to have to deal with it). in the end, though, I suspect I'd return to my current sex (female). if the change was very easy (pills readily available and cheap, transition swift and painless etc.) I can see myself changing a few times. but it were just a one time deal (change or stay as you are), I'd stay as I am. it's part of my identity after all these years, and I'd have a hard time switching. but I would expect younger people to have a much easier time and perhaps change sex on a regular basis. and I don't' think I'd bemoan that societal change.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:

I'm more than a little shocked that there are men who's view of what it is like to be a woman is so negative that they assume a stampede of woman would want out of it like a shot. If the female sex is still regarded with pity, is that in spite of or because of decades of feminism.

OK, stampede was a bit excessive. It seems to me, though, that the process would go something like this:

1. At first, lots of women would remain as women because being a woman is an essential part of their identity;

2. However, as sex-swapping became more common, the whole concept of 'male' and 'female' identity would break down;

3. Which means that the only real factor at play is which body is more attractive, and, all other things being equal, I think the male body generally has the advantage over the female.

Having said that, it is possible that (2) is in direct contradiction to one of my previous posts, in that, if the concept of 'male' and 'female' breaks down, it is also quite likely that the social status (pay, gender roles) attached to each state would also break down.

Also, before anyone else points it out: men have problems too. (I believe the group most at risk of suicide is young men.) However ISTM that these problems are simply not talked about, and would therefore be less likely to influence someone's choice.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

I'd take the pill, no problem. Not because I want to be permanently male but because I'd like to explore having a different identity. I'm entirely comfortable with any members of my family taking the pill as well - husband included, and having talked about "The Left Hand of Darkness" and a much more recent Ursula le Guin, "Birthday of the World", I'm aware we would both want to try it out.

I would love to see the automatic assumptions about people's likes and dislikes, on the basis of gender, seriously eroded. I would love to even the playing field on employment and advancement, to share out childcare, to stop people assuming that you have friendships with the same gender and flirtations with the opposite gender.
There are lots more interesting implications, but I'll spare you the essay...

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Ricardus

Just for the hell of it (this being an exercise in shooting the breeze)

quote:
2. However, as sex-swapping became more common, the whole concept of 'male' and 'female' identity would break down;

Would sex-swapping become more common? The only evidence we have points towards M/F identity not being infinitely plastic. Witness that poor Australian guy whose (physical) sex was reassigned after a botched circumcision. Likewise the experience of transsexuals seems to confirm this. As to gender, it seems equally possible that it might go the other way and become even more exaggerated as a response to perceived confusion.

quote:
3. Which means that the only real factor at play is which body is more attractive, and, all other things being equal, I think the male body generally has the advantage over the female.

Male may be physically stronger on average only, but lasts less long. Personally I find the female body more attractive, but I have no burning ambitions for change in that direction. YMMV.

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :

I always wanted to try it out for a day. Mostly for sex. But although I'm bisexual, my wife is a lesbian, so I'm pretty sure she would not be a fan.

I'm sorry I'm not as thoughtful, I just have a very superficial desire.

Before I started dating my wife, I'd like to wear guys clothes and go out and see who referred to me as sir. It was a fun game. I like playing with gender.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I certainly wouldn't change, except perhaps as a brief experiment in bed with husband.

I'm comfortable with being a woman. I like the fact that I can give birth, both sexes have their own medical challenges, I don't give a toss about pay and prestige, and I'm buggered if I'm going to let the fear of rapists make me dislike being my sex.

I'm more than a little shocked that there are men who's view of what it is like to be a woman is so negative that they assume a stampede of woman would want out of it like a shot. If the female sex is still regarded with pity, is that in spite of or because of decades of feminism.

That's a really good point!

Posted by ProgenitorDope (# 16648) on :

It would probably be pretty bad for me, actually. Historically, women can't stand to be in the same room as me, so I imagine that would be pretty painful and/or confusing if *I* suddenly couldn't stand being in the same room as me.

In all seriousness, though, I can't help but think of that old Dr. Seuss story, "The Sneeches," (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3yJomUhs0g). I'm certainly no expert, but I can't help thinking it would go something along those lines. Or not, whatever, I don't know.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I thought of "The Left Hand of Darkness" too; probably because it is in my top ten of favourite books.

One of the points of Ursula K le Guin's fascinating fantasy is that in a world where gender is not fixed, its inhabitants are, from the outset, going to have to work out how to live together without sexist prejudices or fixed gender role models. The book when published had a certain topicality at that stage of the feminist movement. [I think Ursula Le Guin got it in the neck from some sources for using the male pronoun to describe her ambisexual humans.]

But compared with the OP, the major difference is that in "The Left Hand of Darkness" the ambisexual inhabitants of Winter have no choice. So, for example, when they mate, either partner may end up carrying the baby, having to endure labour. Now that's a thought which makes your average heterosexual male cross his legs.

Trying to answer George's OP honestly, I doubt whether it would bother me too much if others did. When it comes to human sexuality, people's motivations are very much their own. However, as a man born with a heterosexual orientation and now approaching 70, I'm not sure I'd fancy a switch. Too confusing for my poor old brain at this time.

Posted by doubtingthomas (# 14498) on :

This sounds like a very interesting concept. I do no have a strong sense of gender identity, and I think I'd quite enjoy trying out the other kind of body.

And I must read some of the stories mentioned in this thread - thanks for those.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

If such a pill had been available during my "clubbing" years, I'd almost certainly have used it when going out. It's far easier for girls to pull than it is for boys.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I thought Ricardus' post was interesting because, despite being in agreement about the various disadvantages that women face, I wouldn't become a man if I had the chance - except possibly very briefly just to see what it was like and with the clear intention of changing back again.

For many of us, sex and gender *are* linked. Being female is part of my experience of being me - for better or worse I am one of those women who fits the "feminine" stereotype, enjoys make-up and pretty clothes etc etc. I can see the argument that I have been socialised this way but I can't turn the clock on that now. I am the sum of those experiences and influences and that at least in part defines the way I relate to myself. I wouldn't recognise myself anymore if I became male, and the thought of having no idea of who I was scares me more than the various inconvenient sides of being female.

Marv - is the reason that girls find it easier to pull about different attitudes to sex among young men/young women? If so, are you sure you'd still have the same desires if you became female?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Marv - is the reason that girls find it easier to pull about different attitudes to sex among young men/young women? If so, are you sure you'd still have the same desires if you became female?

I don't know why it's different, but in my experience someone who goes out with the intention of pulling has a far higher likelihood of success if they are female. Whether that's because fewer females go out with that intention in the first place I have no idea.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

The biggest influence on my thinking about gender as a conditioned behaviour was reading Judith Butler's Gender Trouble.

Gender for me is something I do rather than something essential and fixed about the way I am. After working with transgender activists in media, I came to realise that part of what is called cisgender privilege is that I have never had to deal with the discomfort or anguish of feeling I am the wrong gender for my body, that there is major dissonance between how I experience myself and what my appearance, genitals or physical gestures say about me.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
A very interesting question!

If you stripped out the whole question of sexual and romantic attraction, I bet you would see ...

[list]
[*]A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate,

hmmm... what sort of assumption about men/women lie behind this comment?

The ease of the transformation would, I suspect, make for some playful short-term changes "just for fun" for experimentation. But I think our experience with transgender men and women shows us that our innate sense of gender is fairly well established, so we wouldn't see much of an explosion in long-term transitions. Although it would certainly make the process easier for those who are transgender.

For myself, I think I'd carry a few pills in my pocket when hiking for a quick change when no outhouse is available.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

sorry... I'm reworking old territory I see. Gotta read the whole thread before responding, but Ricardus' post was just too dang provocative...

Posted by Earwig (# 12057) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
3. Which means that the only real factor at play is which body is more attractive, and, all other things being equal, I think the male body generally has the advantage over the female.

Can't agree with you on that one . Having boobs is great.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Hmmm. The OP has me challenging my notion of just how accepting I am.
Don't think I could deal with a partner who changed for anything other than a temporary experiment.
For one, I am attracted to one sex/gender arrangement. It is how I am wired. For another, while I do not advocate stasis, I do prefer base level stability.
I am fairly certain I would not take the pills other than for a temporary experiment. What I am has, in part, defined who I have become.
As far as family and friends, I am much more whatever.

Though, at what age would one be allowed to take the pills? Taking them at 20 would be profoundly different than taking them at 10.

The concept is an interesting thought experiment, but I think the reality would be a messier version of MT's post. Far, far messier.

Posted by Birdseye (# 5280) on :

All I can think is how inconvenient it would be if everyone could change their sex at will...

If your body changed shape at all you'd have to have more clothes in the wardrobe. If your face changed shape or you grew a beard/ lost a beard... then it would be hard to recognise people your knew from one day to the next. You'd need different toiletry products in stock in the bathroom, and due to varied responses you wouldn't have the foggiest idea whether people were responding to you because of what you said and did, or who you happened to BE that day -so it would undermine your confidence.

If my family wanted to do it -I wouldn't be the least bit bothered since their sex doesn't affect my life much anyway but I would expect them to let me know what they looked like as either gender so that I could still recognise them.

I'd stay as I am because I'm used to my sex, and I wouldn 't want to have to get used to it all over again -that would be effectively reliving puberty!

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

It occurs to me that you could almost take the sex out of the question. Well, I am British.

What I mean is, we seem to be generally but not universally agreed that our sex is a major part of our identity. What the OP is effectively asking then is how we'd feel about having available a different or at least heavily modified identity and being able to step into and out of it at will.

I'd most likely take the pill every day and switch back and forth between the two at least for a while, whether we're talking about male/female or any other forms of me provided one wasn't obviously less pleasant than the other. Whether or not I'd settle down and decide to be one or the other is impossible to say. I'm quite happy for somebody to go away and actually invent it so I can find out, though. [Big Grin]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate...

ROFLMAO

Really, fellas, do not flatter yourselves.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I did think it was rather a male POV!

Posted by Mama Thomas (# 10170) on :

Can't get into the thread at all. Not imaginative enough. Would one's size and hair colour change and what about age? Would a bald man become a bald woman? Would a pregnant woman become a pregnant man? Would a pregnant "person" taking the pill automatically abort if becoming the other sex? How would the fetus get out of a female turned male?

There was a movie abput this called Zerophilia, it also left out the hard questions.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

I think it's cute when the boys believe that the sun rises and falls on their dangly bits. As Julia Louis-Dreyfuss once famously observed on "Seinfeld": "I don't know how guys can live with that thing between your legs."

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think it's cute when the boys believe that the sun rises and falls on their dangly bits. As Julia Louis-Dreyfuss once famously observed on "Seinfeld": "I don't know how guys can live with that thing between your legs."

That's a seriously weird post, LutheranChik. The only people mentioning that (I've just re-read the thread) are all women. Directly twice (once being yours) and indirectly several more mentioning urination. What's with the obsession?

[ 10. May 2012, 17:06: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Believe me, I am not obsessed with dangly bits at all.

I do get irritated with the woman-as-defective-man-who-really-would-rather-be-a-woman attitude reflected in some of the posts. That is just so stupid.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think it's cute when the boys believe that the sun rises and falls on their dangly bits. As Julia Louis-Dreyfuss once famously observed on "Seinfeld": "I don't know how guys can live with that thing between your legs."
That's a seriously weird post, LutheranChik. The only people mentioning that (I've just re-read the thread) are all women. Directly twice (once being yours) and indirectly several more mentioning urination. What's with the obsession?

Read Ricardus' post that LC and the rest of us are responding. The assumption that we would want to be male for anything other than the temporary convenience of urination in challenging locales is what we are responding to.

Posted by no_prophet (# 15560) on :

You don't have to change biological sex to pee standing up, you can get one of these. Try a google search, you'll come up with any number competing devices with all sorts of fascinating names. I thought "GoGirl" was one of the better names, P EZ also catchy.

Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The ease of the transformation would, I suspect, make for some playful short-term changes "just for fun" for experimentation.

Indeed. Would the brain change? I imagine so. I've always felt that sex and gender identity have more to do with how we're perceived than how we are. But then, when those brain-sex questionnaires and tests were popular a while ago, I tried some and always came out solidly female. It would be fascinating to check it all out personally.

Re the dangly bits, from lifelong observation they do seem to make a nice comfort toy. One hand in a pocket, y'know?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

cliffdweller wrote

quote:
Read Ricardus' post that LC and the rest of us are responding. The assumption that we would want to be male for anything other than the temporary convenience of urination in challenging locales is what we are responding to.

It's OK cliffdweller, I understood that. I'm really in agreement with you. I just found it modestly entertaining that LutheranChik was the only contributor who had actually cast things in the way she was complaining of.

LutheranChik wrote -

quote:
Believe me, I am not obsessed with dangly bits at all.

I do get irritated with the woman-as-defective-man-who-really-would-rather-be-a-woman attitude reflected in some of the posts. That is just so stupid.

I certainly agree it is presumptuous or even stupid, whether or not the intent or reasoning was as you describe. But is there not an underlying current of assumptions in all this stuff from both sides? It seems to revolve around assuming that aside from primary sexual features, everything else is neutral. We could try out the other sex just to see what it is like.

But could we? Would it not be more likely that most would get to find out in short order what gender dysphoria is all about? That was the point about citing the experience of trans-people.

At least it seems to me that exploring what assumptions are involved in this POV is what some shipmates have been pushing towards. The primary sexual differences are a given - I don't think beyond the humorous references to peeing whilst standing, that anyone was really that interested in discussing willies or any other genitalia for that matter.

It's a light-hearted thread, so nothing much is at stake, but these sort of things may be a useful and unthreatening way to explore such assumptions.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If you stripped out the whole question of sexual and romantic attraction, I bet you would see ...

A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate,
A massive drive towards sexual equality and perhaps even positive incentives offered for people to become women.

However, it might be worth noting that male to female transsexuals are apparently more common than female to male transsexuals by a factor of three to one:

http://transgenderexplored.com/faq.htm

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
But could we? Would it not be more likely that most would get to find out in short order what gender dysphoria is all about? That was the point about citing the experience of trans-people.

I don't think we have enough data to say one way or another. For all we know, most people might be perfectly comfortable in either form once they've overcome conditioning and familiarity issues and the particular psychological identification as one sex that causes such problems for people whose identification doesn't match their genetic sex could be rare.

I suppose we could find out but we'd have to find a decent number of volunteers willing to undergo sex changes who don't actually want or need one...

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think it's cute when the boys believe that the sun rises and falls on their dangly bits. As Julia Louis-Dreyfuss once famously observed on "Seinfeld": "I don't know how guys can live with that thing between your legs."
That's a seriously weird post, LutheranChik. The only people mentioning that (I've just re-read the thread) are all women. Directly twice (once being yours) and indirectly several more mentioning urination. What's with the obsession?

Not weird at all....I think it's hilarious. And certainly not an obsession...I doubt the women here sit around every day wishing they were men (or, at least, that they could switch genitals).

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

If you stripped out the whole question of sexual and romantic attraction, I bet you would see ...

A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate,
A massive drive towards sexual equality and perhaps even positive incentives offered for people to become women.

However, it might be worth noting that male to female transsexuals are apparently more common than female to male transsexuals by a factor of three to one:

http://transgenderexplored.com/faq.htm

As a bisexual woman having spent a significant amount of time talking to other LGBT people, a common reason for not transitioning to male officially using surgery or T is because of how easy it is to look like the opposite sex (you can easily mistake a girl for a boy depending on how they look but even if you are an MTF it's hard to shed the masculine face and body) and that it's easy to pack (there are lots of variations in size and color) and therefore be able to mimic the gender inside without modifying your body.

This is just a thought, and I'm passing no judgment about transitioning, but that's just been my experience.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

I wouldn't want to suggest it would be a universal thing, Greyface. And if it were simply a case of transsexual people only, the interpretation would be problematic.

But the whole field of gender reassignment surgery for certain intersex conditions has had to deal with this phenomenon - for example in the case of genetic males (XY) who whatever you raise them as seem to overwhelmingly report feeling they are a woman, at least by adulthood. The case of David Reimer is particularly well known and Google will be your friend.

The problem has been that historically, the statement that gender is constructed (which is true enough) has been interpreted as meaning it is entirely a social construct. In truth, nobody knows how or why we construct ideas of gender, or what we use as a basis for doing that. Whilst the medical profession seems to have come to grips with that, I'm not sure that Joe Public has. Or to be fair, that sector of Joe Public who thought this way.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

From a practical point of view, I have trouble enough with face recognition as it is, so if people's gender changed physically, I'd never know who anyone was.

But I would love to be able to change my gender. I have no sense of gender identity, so there wouldn't be an identity issue for me, and I'm asexual, so I wouldn't have to change sexual orientation. I would just be really curious to see how differently I was treated if I were a man instead of a woman, and I also suspect I would get a job more easily in my field and get promotion quicker.

However, if everyone could change their gender at will, then the sexual power differences would change dramatically, and it would be a completely different type of society, and gender may become irrelevant.

Surely, also, for most cisgendered people, they would have to change their gender identity as well as their gender for it to really work, and that would mean changing an essential part of who they are. People's identities would change - their sense of self. I think a lot of people wouldn't want this. I know for myself, I am quite unusual in having no gender identity. Most people seem to have one, whether or not it matches their biological gender.

Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
A stampede of women becoming men, with correspondingly disastrous effects on the birthrate...

ROFLMAO

Really, fellas, do not flatter yourselves.

LOL! I agree!I don't see how one could think there would be a "stampede" of women wanting to become men. Especially because in today's real world of transgenderism, you see more men wanting to become women than women wanting to become men.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

In this theoretical future, is there a pill that would turn folks neuter?

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

ChaliceGirl wrote:

quote:
Especially because in today's real world of transgenderism, you see more men wanting to become women than women wanting to become men.

It's true.

But why is it true?

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

Apparently, Argentina legislators have found a way to do the premise in the OP without the bother of any nasty ol' pill.

Posted by justlooking (# 12079) on :

So in Argentina a woman could decide to identify as a man for the purpose of becoming a Catholic priest. Interesting.

Posted by Stoker (# 11939) on :

I'd pinch myself to check I hadn't woken up in a universe where people really did talk about completely hypothetical shite on a liberal psuedo christian website. But hey there you go!

Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stoker:
I'd pinch myself to check I hadn't woken up in a universe where people really did talk about completely hypothetical shite on a liberal psuedo christian website. But hey there you go!

I don't know. "ITTWALPCW" just doesn't have the same cachet. And the Argentinian law is not hypothetical. It exists. How it is supposed to operate puzzles me, but it exists.

Posted by Paddy O'Furniture (# 12953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rhflan:
I'm not completely convinced that gender is binary anymore in our (western) culture. I'm not sure that it would bother me. My sex and gender line up (I was born female and I am a woman), but I am definitely a major tomboy. If this were 200 years ago I'm sure that everyone in my town would be freaking out about the way I act and present myself.

Yep! I agree with you a 100%! I was always looked on as a freak because I was a tomboy. I don't even like that word--it implies that I want to be a boy. I love being a woman but not a girly-girl. Why can't I just be me with my short, spikey hair and my intelligence/wit/humor/lovingkindness? I like androgyny, too.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Earwig:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
3. Which means that the only real factor at play is which body is more attractive, and, all other things being equal, I think the male body generally has the advantage over the female.
Can't agree with you on that one . Having boobs is great.

For some reason this flashed me back to women at my previous gym, who would occasionally complain that men who wrote gym programs had failed to take into account that boobs could be quite an inconvenience for certain exercises.

Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
ChaliceGirl wrote:
quote:
Especially because in today's real world of transgenderism, you see more men wanting to become women than women wanting to become men.
It's true.

But why is it true?

Don't know. I scratch my head on this one. [Confused]

But I also scratch my head at male transvestites who purposely wear bras and heels when I can't stand wearing either one!

Back to transgenderism...changing gender on a whim would wreak havoc on one's partner, wouldn't it? Or not?

When Chasity Bono was female, she was a lesbian partnered with another lesbian. After she became Chas (a male), her (his) partner was now in a straight relationship, right? But wasn't she with Chasity (a woman) because she likes women? Or maybe she's bi. Really, I'm not making fun, I'm just trying to understand it all.

Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :

In the People column in today's paper there was an item about some celebrity (don't recall the name, because I'd never heard of him anyway--I'm pathetically out of touch with what really matters in American life) who announced he is transitioning to female. He plans to stay married to his wife, who is apparently cool with the whole thing.

WRT the OP... I'm like the Elephant's Child, with 'satiable curiosity. I'd have to try it at least once, since it's reversible, right?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
Back to transgenderism...changing gender on a whim would wreak havoc on one's partner, wouldn't it? Or not?

When Chasity Bono was female, she was a lesbian partnered with another lesbian. After she became Chas (a male), her (his) partner was now in a straight relationship, right? But wasn't she with Chasity (a woman) because she likes women? Or maybe she's bi. Really, I'm not making fun, I'm just trying to understand it all.

It took me a couple of goes reading this to understand it, but I do see your point. The partner who doesn't change is now faced with, in some ways, a different person to the one that they entered a relationship with.

I think you're right, that could be incredibly difficult.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

My friend and I read one of those 'gender test' books. I came out far more male than him and he came out way more female than me.

I was a total tomboy as a youngster and wanted to be a boy - and I used to complain loudly about it.

But I've enjoyed being a woman, having children etc etc. My desire to be a man was entirely based on perceived inequalities.

Now the main reason I wouldn't like to swap is that I'd hate to have my sexual organs dangling outside my body - how inconvenient!

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

It would be interesting to see the response/s of those in church hierarchies who seek to restrict the roles and rights of some people on account of their sexual identity.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Now the main reason I wouldn't like to swap is that I'd hate to have my sexual organs dangling outside my body - how inconvenient!

The cons: need to protect them.

The pros: easy access. [Biased]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

I've often thought it would be fun to come back in the next life as the other gender, just so you can experience of both sides of the human race. But I'd find it very confusing to keep chopping and changing during one life.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
My desire to be a man was entirely based on perceived inequalities.

I suspect that most people who would change sex - in both directions - would be doing so because of perceived inequalities. Women see men as having all the power in business, men see women as having all the power in relationships.

Posted by Spiffy (# 5267) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:

When Chasity Bono was female, she was a lesbian partnered with another lesbian. After she became Chas (a male), her (his) partner was now in a straight relationship, right? But wasn't she with Chasity (a woman) because she likes women? Or maybe she's bi. Really, I'm not making fun, I'm just trying to understand it all.

As a cisgendered person who's had a long term relationship with someone whose pronoun changed while we were together-- pretty much it's none of your damn business what the two people's sexual orientation is, unless you're in the relationship.

I was attracted to my partner because of his personality. His personality didn't change all that much when the pronoun changed to she.

(Then again, even before this relationship, I found the notion of binary genders absolutely hi-freakin'-larious and mostly uneccesary.)

Basically what I'm getting at is you don't get to apply labels to other people. Or, like some dude said once way back when, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

If you have a question about how to refer to someone's gender or sexuality, here's a novel idea-- ASK THEM.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Anyone wanting to choose the category 'asexual'? Several people on Facebook have identified with this category because that's the label that best describes them (in an age when the predominant view is that that all adults should be sexual beings). But whether this is because they accept the fact or would actively choose to be so, I'm not sure.

It's beginning to sound as if the packet of pills for gender bending should be in multi-colours and multi-flavourings.

Posted by WhateverTheySay (# 16598) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyone wanting to choose the category 'asexual'? Several people on Facebook have identified with this category because that's the label that best describes them (in an age when the predominant view is that that all adults should be sexual beings). But whether this is because they accept the fact or would actively choose to be so, I'm not sure.

For me identifying as asexual is predominantly acceptance that I don't feel attracted to either gender. I have identified this way ever since I first heard the terminology.

Though I am glad to be asexual. For unrelated reasons, romantic relationships are my idea of hell. Sure I could be straight or gay and refuse to be in a relationship, but there would be pressure (or at least perceived pressure) to be in a relationship. Being asexual almost gives me an excuse to justify not being in a relationship.

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

When I checked out Second Life some years ago, I seem to remember that you could flip your gender backwards and forwards between male and female. Maybe that's what such a world would look like.

quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
Apparently, Argentina legislators have found a way to do the premise in the OP without the bother of any nasty ol' pill.

Actually, I think Nepal of all places got there ahead of them, when they introduced "transgender" as a third gender option in last year's national census

However, I'm not aware of them adding any third closets to toilet blocks.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
Anyone wanting to choose the category 'asexual'? Several people on Facebook have identified with this category because that's the label that best describes them (in an age when the predominant view is that that all adults should be sexual beings). But whether this is because they accept the fact or would actively choose to be so, I'm not sure.

I'm asexual, as I mentioned earlier, but last time I checked Facebook profile settings, it wasn't an option. It just lets you select whether you like men or women - assuming that everyone likes one or the other. But I wouldn't declare my asexuality on Facebook anyway, as it's not really anyone's business. If it comes up in conversation, I'm happy to mention it, but it's not something I randomly announce to everyone I know.

What asexual means for me is that I don't experience sexual attraction or sexual feelings. As far as I'm aware, if someone is choosing not to have sex, that is not asexuality - that is abstinence. If, for instance, a gay person chooses not to have sex, they are still gay - they don't become asexual. They're a gay person practicing abstinence. Asexuality means lack of sexual attraction.

On the asexuality site (AVEN) people have a whole variety of categories and extra labels - some asexual people are romantic, some are 'grey', which I think means they have a few sexual feelings. Personally, my asexuality is very simple and doesn't involve anything other than a lack of sexual attraction, so I don't get involved with all the labels, and I don't use that site.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fineline:
I'm asexual, as I mentioned earlier, but last time I checked Facebook profile settings, it wasn't an option. It just lets you select whether you like men or women - assuming that everyone likes one or the other.

On their wall, people choose to reveal what they wish to reveal, and some that I have access to have indicated that they are asexual. It made me wonder whether, if some could take a magic pill, they might choose to be asexual (perhaps for a break from the complications of usually being a sexual being?)

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

I've always had little sense of gender. I remember even as a child being puzzled by it all. It's been natural to me to look a bit androgynous, though also consciously to divert at least some assumptions. A middle aged male is no more or less likely to be pigeonholed, but it's always good to jump right out again.

Posted by argona (# 14037) on :

quote:
Originally posted by argona:
I've always had little sense of gender. I remember even as a child being puzzled by it all. It's been natural to me to look a bit androgynous, though also consciously to divert at least some assumptions. A middle aged male like me is no more or less likely to be pigeonholed than anyone, but it's always good to jump right out again.

Missed the edit - read the above for clarity

Posted by Desert Daughter (# 13635) on :

interesting thought experiment... I toyed with it for the past day or so... then I got the sneaking suspicion that a change of what's on my bank account (higher or lower) would probably have a much, much greater impact on the way I live than a gender change.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

ChaliceGirl and Ron Bacardi

Germain Greer, who sympathises with 'gender role distress', disapproves of gender reassignment because she sees it as a way of buying into preconceived notions of what male and female ought to look like. Her response is that instead of surgery, we need a 'radical change of gender roles'.

This is an ineresting response. I wonder if the higher rate of male-female gender reassignment is related to the fact that 'tomboyism' and generally feisty femaleness are more or less acceptable for women, whereas the opposite behaviours for men are seen as far more problematic. A girl who wants to play with cars and soldiers is cute; a boy who wants to play with Barbies and sewing kits is teased. So it must be easier for some boys to feel (or be made to feel) that their behaviour identifies them with girls, not just in terms of behaviour, but in terms of their self-image as a whole.

Going back to Greer, she feels that society's willingness to remove the male reproductive organs from men with gender role distress' is somewhat offensive because it assumes that womanhood consists merely of an absence of male organs. It makes women into a 'non-sex', merely a castrated male! Apparently, male-female transsexuals never request the transplant of uterus and ovaries, and Greer provocatively suggests that if such transplants were made mandatory for male-female transsexuals, the demand for gender reassignment surgery would grind to a halt!!!

I've never read any of Greer's other books, but 'The Whole Woman' is certainly very interesting.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
On their wall, people choose to reveal what they wish to reveal, and some that I have access to have indicated that they are asexual. It made me wonder whether, if some could take a magic pill, they might choose to be asexual (perhaps for a break from the complications of usually being a sexual being?)

Ah, as a sort of 'coming out' thing, maybe? That is interesting. I guess for me, it's not really part of my identity, because it's a negative quality (not negative as in bad, but negative as in it's defining me in terms of what I'm not, rather than what I am) so it's not something I think a lot about.

Several people have told me they'd like to be asexual, because it would make life simpler. Although I guess that's a bit different from the idea of changing gender - it's about changing sexuality.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Germain Greer, who sympathises with 'gender role distress', disapproves of gender reassignment because she sees it as a way of buying into preconceived notions of what male and female ought to look like. Her response is that instead of surgery, we need a 'radical change of gender roles'.

That's interesting - it sounds like it's based on the idea that gender is purely a socialised thing, rather than an intrinsic sense of gender identity. The research seems to suggest it's both though. I know someone who is female to male trans, and for him it's very important to have surgery to remove his breasts, because they simply feel wrong - like they are not part of him.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SvitlanaV2 wrote:

quote:
Going back to Greer, she feels that society's willingness to remove the male reproductive organs from men with gender role distress' is somewhat offensive because it assumes that womanhood consists merely of an absence of male organs. It makes women into a 'non-sex', merely a castrated male! Apparently, male-female transsexuals never request the transplant of uterus and ovaries, and Greer provocatively suggests that if such transplants were made mandatory for male-female transsexuals, the demand for gender reassignment surgery would grind to a halt!!!

A rather more obvious reason that nobody asks for that would be that it would need a uterus/ovary etc. transplant. And that would need to have been preceded by years of animal experiments, and a source of suitable donors among (probably) dead young women. Transplants are seriously risky operations, only contemplated when the body's own organs have failed/are failing. There's no point asking for something nobody is going to give you.

But an interesting series of thoughts. I wasn't aware that GG had written on this, though I ought to have guessed she might have done. Typically I think her work tends to embrace a variety of styles, from the factual through to the provocative (i.e. trying to provoke people into thinking about things in greater depth.) and I suspect that latter one fits in the "provocative" genre.

But as to the other points, I find myself nodding my head in agreement at half, and shaking it at the other half. One of the things we haven't addressed so far about all this is the so called mind-body dualism, a problem as much philosophical as it is biological. It's been around for millenia. The usual comment made about it is that it usually leads to exaltation of the mind at the expense of the body - it is typical of gnostic thought. GG is going against that, and is pushing towards taking the body seriously, and I approve of that.

But concerning this bit:-

quote:
Germain Greer, who sympathises with 'gender role distress', disapproves of gender reassignment because she sees it as a way of buying into preconceived notions of what male and female ought to look like. Her response is that instead of surgery, we need a 'radical change of gender roles'.

She is clearly not without sympathy. And who of us can say we have not been irritated by gender roles being used as stereotypes, even though we will unquestioningly obey other gender roles when it suits? The key to what is problematic about this is what fineline has just pointed out - that these things are certainly constructed, but somewhere in there we have something else going one, and in some way our ideas of being a woman or a man are built on that. It seems likely that we could sweep away gender roles in a thought experiment, but what would then likely happen is that new ones would appear as from nowhere. A sense of dysphoria is not predicated directly on discomfort with those gender roles - everyone feels that to a degree. It is based more upon the sense that the person afflicted feels they identify with the sex to which the other gender roles are assigned. And if it isn't really to do with those gender roles directly, radically re-working them isn't going to offer a solution.

I think I would advise anyone in the same place as GG to spend some time catching up on how and why gender reassignment surgery is handled now as compared with e.g. the 1970's and 1980's. The whole issue of gender at that time became subject to all sorts of theories, and sadly some of these got treated as facts. We do have some input now from science that contradicts certain of those theories (see my response above to Greyface) but they still seem to carry a powerful resonance with some people - possibly because they have invested a lot of emotional capital in them.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I'm biologically female, but am more or less androgynous, and asexual, so I think I'd make a point of switching back and forth frequently just to keep my sexual/gender identity unstable. Of course, there's the question of side effects: if the pill could change your physique that much, then certainly it would hurt or be uncomfortable, at least.

I would probably also experiment with taking two pills at a time. What would an overdose do? Would it make you express the other sex even more? How long would the change take, and what would happen if you kept dosing at a rate of half the time the change takes? Could you remain sort of in-between sexes?

Basically, my thinking would be, "How much fun can we have with this?"

Chances are, though, I'd eventually settle into whichever body felt more comfortable to me. I honestly can't imagine which that would be.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:
Back to transgenderism...changing gender on a whim would wreak havoc on one's partner, wouldn't it? Or not?

When Chasity Bono was female, she was a lesbian partnered with another lesbian. After she became Chas (a male), her (his) partner was now in a straight relationship, right? But wasn't she with Chasity (a woman) because she likes women? Or maybe she's bi. Really, I'm not making fun, I'm just trying to understand it all.

I had a friend who was transgendered, but she never had the operation. She said she identified as a heterosexual male, but didn't want an operation for health-related reasons. But, she said, "I have no trouble finding women who will sleep with me." I have to admit I wondered how they felt, if they were lesbians, that their partner considered herself a heterosexual man, but it was really none of my business. I could imagine a number of different answers to the question, but I don't need to know anyone's actual reasons for loving who they love.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
[Transplanting a uterus and ovaries ] would need to have been preceded by years of animal experiments, and a source of suitable donors among (probably) dead young women. Transplants are seriously risky operations, only contemplated when the body's own organs have failed/are failing. There's no point asking for something nobody is going to give you.

But I think Greer's point is that to be a woman, you need to have the right equipment, you don't just need to lose your male genitalia. In other words, a woman isn't just a man with the male bits removed.

quote:

It seems likely that we could sweep away gender roles in a thought experiment, but what would then likely happen is that new ones would appear as from nowhere.

This is an interesting claim to make. Can you argue your case a bit, here? Why would this happen? Imagine the Western world 200 years from now - will gender roles be that important, do you think? I don't know, but the modernist assumption tends to be that we're moving towards a world where the distinctions are becoming ever more blurred. Or perhaps one might be looking at it from a post-feminist perspective, where all the miniskirts, high heels and boob jobs suggest a yearning to reassert a certain image of femininity, perhaps as a reaction to so much blurring of the boundaries in other aspects of life.

quote:

A sense of dysphoria is not predicated directly on discomfort with those gender roles - everyone feels that to a degree. It is based more upon the sense that the person afflicted feels they identify with the sex to which the other gender roles are assigned. And if it isn't really to do with those gender roles directly, radically re-working them isn't going to offer a solution.

What does it mean to 'identify with a sex'? If it isn't about roles and about appearance, what is it?

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Where on earth does Greer get the idea that society is "willing"?

Transgender people had to fight long and hard to get the surgery that they wanted.

Posted by rhflan (# 17092) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Paddy O'Furniture:

quote:
Originally posted by rhflan:
I'm not completely convinced that gender is binary anymore in our (western) culture. I'm not sure that it would bother me. My sex and gender line up (I was born female and I am a woman), but I am definitely a major tomboy. If this were 200 years ago I'm sure that everyone in my town would be freaking out about the way I act and present myself.
Yep! I agree with you a 100%! I was always looked on as a freak because I was a tomboy. I don't even like that word--it implies that I want to be a boy. I love being a woman but not a girly-girl. Why can't I just be me with my short, spikey hair and my intelligence/wit/humor/lovingkindness? I like androgyny, too.

Exactly. I'm not convinced that gender is binary (or that is HAS to be), but I'm also not convinced that sex is either. I mean, perhaps it GENERALLY is...but what about someone who is XY but doesn't have typical male genitalia? Is that person male, female, or something else?

Posted by AristonAstuanax (# 10894) on :

This is something I've (yes, really) thought about a lot. After all, how many questions and problems of society and philosophy could we answer if someone could pull a Tiresius, spend some good, quality time living as the opposite sex, and tell us how it was? I feel kinda cheated that about half of all humanity gets to have an experience (being female) that, biologically speaking, I can never have. Sure, I can identify as female, change my gender, etc., but is that really the same? I don't know, and I don't know if I can know—but spending some Good Quality Time as a woman would probably give me a few clues.

Yes, there is a very large part of me that would still play gender bender even if society were completely equal and gender roles dissolved. No, I've never been particularly comfortable in assigning certain traits and roles to certain genders, and not only because I don't match a lot of what's expected from my own gender (and, I suspect, a lot of men don't). I've never been that aggressive (though a lot of that was training), wasn't very athletic, had a lot of female friends growing up, actually wanted to learn how to cook and bake for reasons that had nothing to do with a woman (but everything to do with not liking the idea of starving . . . well, and the idea of chocolate cake), and lots of other things men aren't supposed to do, but women are.

Plus, even though it's not all of them, some elements of who I am seem male or female—most aren't, but there are a few. It might be interesting to see how or if they change.

And yes, recognition issues would be interesting. Ditto who you'd look like. I'd hope for Ramona Flowers as my female self (it's kinda what I think of it/her looking like anyway), but I know I'm not that lucky. Perhaps we'd go to wearing name tags/trans-body tattoos? Perhaps there's some David K. Lewis way in which a world like ours, but with the ability to change sex/gender at a whim would work?*

Can't say I'd mind it.

*Short summary of my whole graduate philosophy career: it's a way in which you can explain how a whole world with counterfactual possibilities would work. It's not "just like this world, but with X," since that leads to too many contradictions (a world just like this one, but with me being female, would be very odd indeed, as everyone would have thought of me as male, all my ID cards would have an "M" on them, etc.); there's some way in which it's a world as close as this one as possible, with X, but without compromising other important laws, ways of things working, etc. Yes, it's very, very complicated, and you probably don't actually want to know.

Posted by ChaliceGirl (# 13656) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Spiffy:

quote:
Originally posted by ChaliceGirl:

When Chasity Bono was female, she was a lesbian partnered with another lesbian. After she became Chas (a male), her (his) partner was now in a straight relationship, right? But wasn't she with Chasity (a woman) because she likes women? Or maybe she's bi. Really, I'm not making fun, I'm just trying to understand it all.
As a cisgendered person who's had a long term relationship with someone whose pronoun changed while we were together-- pretty much it's none of your damn business what the two people's sexual orientation is, unless you're in the relationship.

I was attracted to my partner because of his personality. His personality didn't change all that much when the pronoun changed to she.

(Then again, even before this relationship, I found the notion of binary genders absolutely hi-freakin'-larious and mostly uneccesary.)

Basically what I'm getting at is you don't get to apply labels to other people. Or, like some dude said once way back when, "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

If you have a question about how to refer to someone's gender or sexuality, here's a novel idea-- ASK THEM.

First off, what a "cisgendered" person?

Secondly, you instruct at the end of your post that I should "ask", and that is exactly what I did. But then in the same post, you say its "none of my damn business." So which is it?

Also I am not labeling people and I resent the implication.

Posted by Poptart22 (# 17096) on :

Cisgendered refers to people whose gender identity matches their biological sex, generally. Maybe I'm a little off, but that's the basic idea. And I support asking that stuff out of curiosity because it's confusing. I know lots of people who label themselves as something other than cisgender and it's complicated as far as after transitioning.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

rhflan wrote:-

quote:
Exactly. I'm not convinced that gender is binary (or that is HAS to be), but I'm also not convinced that sex is either. I mean, perhaps it GENERALLY is...but what about someone who is XY but doesn't have typical male genitalia? Is that person male, female, or something else?

Gender has a largely constructed component, so different criteria apply as compared to sex.

Someone who is genetically XY but shows external female genitalia is most likely to be suffering from androgen insensitivity. They remain genetically male though externally they appear to be female. The majority of people who have this condition choose to live as females - they report that that is simply how they feel. It was considering the implications of this and other categories of intersex conditions that led to the changes in how gender assignment was handled.

But the point of this really is to say that classification of such matters is only a problem if you adopt an essentialist position. And of course some people do, and it won't work. Classification should be a matter of phenomenology, assuming you need to undertake it at all.

SvitlanaV2 - I will get back to you.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SvitlanaV2 - sorry about the delay. I'm trying to host some relations from overseas!

quote:
But I think Greer's point is that to be a woman, you need to have the right equipment, you don't just need to lose your male genitalia. In other words, a woman isn't just a man with the male bits removed.

Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy no longer a woman? I don't think I can agree with this approach. To be sure if I was a woman of childbearing age and had to have a hysterectomy I would certainly think I had lost something, but it would not be the fact of being a woman.

quote:
quote:
It seems likely that we could sweep away gender roles in a thought experiment, but what would then likely happen is that new ones would appear as from nowhere.

This is an interesting claim to make. Can you argue your case a bit, here? Why would this happen? Imagine the Western world 200 years from now - will gender roles be that important, do you think? I don't know, but the modernist assumption tends to be that we're moving towards a world where the distinctions are becoming ever more blurred. Or perhaps one might be looking at it from a post-feminist perspective, where all the miniskirts, high heels and boob jobs suggest a yearning to reassert a certain image of femininity, perhaps as a reaction to so much blurring of the boundaries in other aspects of life.

We say that gender is constructed because what it is deemed to cover varies from culture to culture, and across time. One thing that does not vary is the existence of gender itself within society. In fact I don't think any society is known which has no concept of gender. Which is very odd if you stop to think about it. I really have no idea why this might be (and would be interested to hear of any speculation) but there does seem to have been a recrudescence of exaggerated gender manifestations amongst younger people.

I don't really want to get into issues around post-feminism - I don't know that it's helpful (having given it a cursory quick consideration). Maybe you could say that feminism itself has become a gendered activity. Early first-wave feminism wasn't.

Socio-economic conditions change, and existing gender roles just get in the way of that. That's a different issue. Just getting rid of one set of gender-specific stuff may be beneficial but if it is part of the social mix that leads to women being more troubled by body image than they were (anorexia, breast implants...) we need to be rather cautious about what we define as progress and what we omit. I am not suggesting there is a direct correspondence here let me stress, rather that we seem to see ourselves as embodied creatures in a world we feel more alienated from. Some people's alienation is in the area of sex and gender.

Gaah! Out of time again. This is frustrating but I'll try to continue later.

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
I had a friend who was transgendered, but she never had the operation. She said she identified as a heterosexual male, but didn't want an operation for health-related reasons. But, she said, "I have no trouble finding women who will sleep with me." I have to admit I wondered how they felt, if they were lesbians, that their partner considered herself a heterosexual man, but it was really none of my business. I could imagine a number of different answers to the question, but I don't need to know anyone's actual reasons for loving who they love.

Now this I really don't get. Was your friend a she or a he, I mean an "it", no, well ... I mean someone without the wiggly bit between the legs, or no, i.e. double-X-chromosomed, ... no I guess not necessarily, well... [Confused]

And now s/he's no longer transgendered, so what's your friend now?

... Um, and what would happen to your friend if your friend were to take the tablet?

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Is a woman who has had a hysterectomy no longer a woman? I don't think I can agree with this approach. To be sure if I was a woman of childbearing age and had to have a hysterectomy I would certainly think I had lost something, but it would not be the fact of being a woman.

Ah, but you can't have a hysterectomy unless you've had ovaries and a uterus to begin with! The very fact that you've had to go through this operation is proof that you're a woman! (So some might say.)

quote:

Maybe you could say that feminism itself has become a gendered activity. Early first-wave feminism wasn't.

I'm not a good student of the history of feminism. But one thing I've noticed is that it often tends to be women who argue about gender as social construction, as Greer does. Some men do, of course - and probably most of the men who frequent a website like this one! But many men seem more nervous of challenging traditional gender roles, and are finding it harder to deal with the blurring boundaries of post-modernity. They often seem to accept the changing sitution because they have no choice, not because they really want to. I think the reason is because men often stand to lose status, influence and even money in the current more fluid environment, whereas women, who start from a position of historical disadvantage, are more likely to gain in those areas. There seem to be a number of men (at least on the net) who actively see the gains for women as losses for men....

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

SvitlanaV2 wrote:

quote:
I'm not a good student of the history of feminism. But one thing I've noticed is that it often tends to be women who argue about gender as social construction, as Greer does. Some men do, of course - and probably most of the men who frequent a website like this one! But many men seem more nervous of challenging traditional gender roles, and are finding it harder to deal with the blurring boundaries of post-modernity. They often seem to accept the changing sitution because they have no choice, not because they really want to. I think the reason is because men often stand to lose status, influence and even money in the current more fluid environment, whereas women, who start from a position of historical disadvantage, are more likely to gain in those areas. There seem to be a number of men (at least on the net) who actively see the gains for women as losses for men....

I'm not sure about post-modernism - academia seems to have moved on to post-structuralism these days. Same thing without the requirement for incoherence I guess. But I think there is much in what you say. In fact I think you could probably predict it given the socio-economic developments of the twentieth century, and the history of what went before. The point remains though that to say that gender is a construct (yes, I guess most here will assent to that) is not saying it is either societally avoidable, or that its construction is necessarily unconstrained. Those are separate things that would need to be demonstrated or refuted in addition.

Historically gender and sex were inextricably linked. In fact gender was simply an observation of the sort of things associated with either men or women, and has become more or less synonymous in everyday parlance, though that won't work here. Linguistically, we say a word is masculine or feminine simply because we put it in the same bucket as the word for man or woman respectively. Le vagin is masculine in French, but there is nothing male about it. It is masculine because in this case it has a masculine word ending only.

It was anthropology that suggested that gender exists everywhere but varies in content. It was the medical sciences that suggest that gender is not a disposable construct but is as much to do with a deep-seated sense of the self as anything else. For most of us at least. Assuming otherwise on the basis of theory alone has led to a lot of grief for people who do not or cannot conform to the theory. In fact they are the evidence that refutes that theory.

It seems to me that in most public discourse we tend to get one of two extreme positions. In the "traditionalist" corner, we get the assertion that gender is an immutable part of sex difference. In the "progressive" corner we get the assertion that gender is only a social construct and can be done away with. There are two problems with both of these positions. The first is that they both involve a kind of essentialism. The second is that both appear on the basis of evidence so far, to be wrong. Scientifically they are both likely to crash and burn. They are the product of thinking about things in the same wrong way.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0